I try to understand and respect their opinions. However, I have my limits. I still can't understand them.

What is bad about WC3? This has always been mind boggling me. Some of my friends also can't stand it. I'm curious.

Compared with StarCraft, WC3 lacks the strategy. It's more about micro. StarCraft players generally hate this. StarCraft is generally divided in micro/macro so there's more room for strategic manuvers. WC3 however has all its strategy in micro.

Micro = micromanagement such as controlling units.
Macro = macromanagement such as making workers and sending them to harvest resources/make structures etc.

Ah, I see your point.

With the additional spells in the expantion just add more micro to the gameplay. I'm no fanboy of either, but I believe this makes even more use of stragetic gameplay. Either way, Blizzard knows how to make good RTS games.

honostly Halo = overrated Halo wars doesnt make sense. Think about it... in the trailer to that game theres like 30 spartans at the end saying if they want war they got it or waht ever. BUT in the game 1 (or 2 if you co-op) spartan units basically take out their entire Army and Home base, therefor that many spartans and the war would be over in 30 seconds. But the trailer looks cool to bad I dislike RTS'